Title IX – Collegiate & Professional Sports Law Bloghttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 15:27:25 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9State Legislators React to Proposed Federal Title IX Regulations with State Law Proposalshttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/state-legislators-react-to-proposed-federal-title-ix-regulations-with-state-law-proposals/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/state-legislators-react-to-proposed-federal-title-ix-regulations-with-state-law-proposals/#respondTue, 05 Feb 2019 15:16:10 +0000https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1636While colleges, universities and educational professionals await the Department of Education’s (DOE) proposed new Title IX regulations, which will dictate a revised process by which allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled, the state legislatures in Missouri and Arizona are currently considering legislation that would adopt many of Secretary DeVos’s anticipated regulatory modifications. Click here...… Continue Reading

]]>While colleges, universities and educational professionals await the Department of Education’s (DOE) proposed new Title IX regulations, which will dictate a revised process by which allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled, the state legislatures in Missouri and Arizona are currently considering legislation that would adopt many of Secretary DeVos’s anticipated regulatory modifications.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/state-legislators-react-to-proposed-federal-title-ix-regulations-with-state-law-proposals/feed/0New Proposed Title IX Regulations Raise Unique Institutional Concerns For Rights Of Accusedhttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/amateur-sports/new-proposed-title-ix-regulations-raise-unique-institutional-concerns-for-rights-of-accused/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/amateur-sports/new-proposed-title-ix-regulations-raise-unique-institutional-concerns-for-rights-of-accused/#respondTue, 20 Nov 2018 17:34:51 +0000https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1621As colleges and universities review the Department of Education’s proposed new Title IX regulations revising process by which allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled, they must consider the potential impact of what appears to be clearly greater protections for those accused of sexual misconduct, including student-athletes. The proposed regulations will formally replace guidance and...… Continue Reading

]]>As colleges and universities review the Department of Education’s proposed new Title IX regulations revising process by which allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled, they must consider the potential impact of what appears to be clearly greater protections for those accused of sexual misconduct, including student-athletes.

The proposed regulations will formally replace guidance and interpretation of Title IX from the Obama Administration, which had called for strict enforcement and interpretation of the law and recommended specific procedural actions for colleges and universities (including use of the minimal “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof when assessing sexual assault claims).

Unlike other students, a sexual assault allegation against a student-athlete often results in immediate suspension from the team. Beyond the impact that a suspension has on the student-athlete’s eligibility and the competitiveness of the institution’s sports program, such suspensions attract negative publicity for both the student-athlete and institution. Student-athletes, like other students accused of sexual misconduct, have experienced due process limitations under the current process, particularly with respect to evidentiary restrictions. The proposed Title IX regulations would appear to improve due process conditions for all students who have been accused of violations under their institution’s sexual misconduct policies.

After rescinding the Obama Administration’s Title IX guidance in 2017, Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said of the 149-page document containing the long-awaited new regulations,

“We can, and must, condemn sexual violence and punish those who perpetrate it, while ensuring a fair grievance process. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas.” Devos continued, “… [E]very student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined.”

ESPN’s recent review of information received from 32 of the 65 schools that make up the Power 5 conferences concluded that student-athletes are three times more likely than other students to be accused of sexual misconduct. Student-athletes represented 6.3% of the accused in Title IX complaints, while athletes make up only 1.7% of total student undergraduate enrollment.

In response to discipline imposed against them, many accused student-athletes have filed lawsuits against their universities and individual administrators in the sexual misconduct process.

Since 2011, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed by accused students against colleges and universities claiming due process violations during the course of Title IX investigations and disciplinary proceedings.

For many, access to the civil courts offers a last chance for justice and a legal option to help clear their names. Lawsuits brought by the accused have utilized numerous legal theories to challenge disciplinary actions, including breach of contract, violations of Title IX, gender discrimination, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and other relevant state law claims.

The DOE’s proposed regulations will create a more legalized sexual misconduct process on campus. The DOE hopes to reduce the propensity for litigation following the institution’s hearing process. Decreasing governmental investigatory resource burden and saving institutions money also may result. According to the DOE, the new regulations will decrease substantially the number of investigations into complaints of sexual misconduct and save institutions millions over the next decade.

Moreover, the proposed regulations would provide institutions the autonomy to decide how sexual misconduct cases are adjudicated. To this end, the proposed changes include:

The ability for universities to chose the applicable evidentiary standard (either “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence”) in determining responsibility for the misconduct.

The ability for institutions to utilize an informal resolution process to resolve sexual misconduct allegations, if the parties agree.

The requirement that schools hold live hearings.

Institutions are not permitted to use any individual who was involved in the investigation of an alleged sexual assault to subsequently serve as a fact-finder in any sexual assault hearing that follows the investigation. All hearings must be conducted by a neutral trier of fact and conducted with an initial presumption of innocence.

Accusers and students accused of committing sexual assault must be given the opportunity to cross-examine each other and other potential witnesses through an adviser or attorney, and universities would not be able to limit this right. If a party or witness refuses to submit to cross-examination, that person’s testimony could not be relied on by the fact-finder.

Both parties must have equal access to all evidence the school’s designated investigator has gathered, and both parties retain the ability to appeal decisions.

Proponents and critics of the regulations have 60 days (until January 15, 2019) to submit comments before the regulations go into effect.

It is anticipated at this time that the final regulations will mirror the proposed regulations. While the 60-day period is ongoing, colleges and universities are afforded the opportunity to carefully review their current sexual misconduct policies and practices to determine what changes they will implement to comply with the anticipated regulations.

While the regulations’ goal is to equalize accusers and the accused by providing additional rights to benefit accused individuals,

many critics have expressed concern that the regulations go too far, and that institutional sexual misconduct processes may harm accusers’ rights.

For example, critics say the new cross-examination requirement will force accusers to face questioning that could influence the victims’ willingness to report sexual assault. They also say the proposed regulations provide the accused with more power to intimidate and hurt victims.

Jackson Lewis’ Collegiate and Professional Sports Practice Group and its Higher Education Industry Group are well-versed in Title IX issues and will continue to monitor and provide updates on developments in this area. Please feel free to reach out to any member with questions.

]]>On the heels of the NCAA’s Board of Governor’s recent policy announcement requiring college coaches, athletics administrators and student-athletes to be educated in sexual violence prevention, eight United States Senators have forwarded a letter to the NCAA’s Commission to Combat Campus Sexual Violence.

requests that the NCAA develop a “uniform policy” to formally address all prospective and current student-athletes possessing a history of sexual violence to protect all students, regardless of what college they attend.

The Senators’ letter addressed the “alarming rate” of sexual violence on college campuses.

While they recognized the challenges that NCAA member conferences and colleges face to balance student-athlete accountability, they emphasized ensuring that all students are safe on campus.

The letter acknowledged the specific steps taken by the Pac-12 conference and the University of Oregon to restrict transfer student-athletes from receiving athletic aid and participating as a student-athlete if they are unable to re-enroll at the previous school they attended because of prior misconduct while attending that prior school.

The Senators also commended Indiana University for creating a policy that makes all potential student-athletes subject to a policy that makes any athlete who previously had been convicted or pled guilty to a sexual violence felony or been held responsible for sexual violence by any university’s formal discipline policy ineligible for any athletic aid and intercollegiate competition. The Indiana University policy is believed to be the first Power Five conference school enactment to formerly ban student-athletes for sexual violence.

The NCAA has not issued a formal public response to the Senators’ letter.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/amateur-sports/1548/feed/0New Sexual Violence Prevention Education Policy Adopted by National Collegiate Athletic Associationhttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/new-sexual-violence-prevention-education-policy-adopted-by-national-collegiate-athletic-association/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/new-sexual-violence-prevention-education-policy-adopted-by-national-collegiate-athletic-association/#respondMon, 14 Aug 2017 20:24:35 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1545Coaches, athletics administrators, and student-athletes must be educated in sexual violence prevention under a policy adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Board of Governors on August 8, 2017. The new policy provides that annually, every member institution’s president or chancellor, athletic director, and Title IX coordinator will be required to attest that the...… Continue Reading

]]>Coaches, athletics administrators, and student-athletes must be educated in sexual violence prevention under a policy adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Board of Governors on August 8, 2017.

The new policy provides that annually, every member institution’s president or chancellor, athletic director, and Title IX coordinator will be required to attest that the school’s:

Policies and procedures are readily available in the athletics department.

The new policy, however, does not impose any requirements with respect to bans or restrictions on the participation in athletics of individuals accused of, or found responsible for, violations of policies against sexual violence. Institutions continue to have discretion with respect to those determinations.

NCAA member institutions should review their training and awareness programs to ensure that all members of the athletics department, including staff and student-athletes, are educated about sexual violence prevention, bystander intervention, the institution’s procedures for filing and adjudicating complaints of sexual violence, and the resources available to support and assist those who have been affected by sexual violence. Athletic departments should consider including the institution’s policies and procedures relating to sexual violence in their student-athlete handbooks.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist you in evaluating, designing, and delivering training programs to meet the new requirements.

]]>The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) has released a White Paper on Campus Sexual Assault Investigations aimed at improving the process employed by universities to address campus sexual assaults.

Concerns over sexual assaults on college campuses had prompted the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to issue a Dear Colleague Letter, as well as a subsequent 2014 clarification, significantly expanding the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX by establishing new procedures for colleges and universities to respond to allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

Members of law school faculties have opined that the accused in such assault cases are being denied fundamental rights.

State and federal court cases also similarly highlighted concerns about fairness during the investigative process.

The ACTL White Paper calls for the inclusion of due process mechanics during the investigative process. Recognizing the issues faced by universities at risk of losing federal funding for failure to comply with Title IX, the Paper notes, “These not-so-subtle pressures may contribute to partially discriminatory investigations and the absence of protection for the accused.”

The ACTL advocates for encompassing essential elements of due process, including a fair and impartial investigation and hearing by qualified factfinders, the right to counsel for both parties, access to evidence, notice of allegations, and some form of cross-examination.

The White Paper focuses on the rights of the accused, suggesting they be provided:

(1) a hearing with due consideration for partiality that could arise from the factfinders’ other responsibilities;

(2) timely details of the allegations;

(3) notice of their right to counsel and right to be accompanied by counsel at all phases;

(4) access to all evidence at a meaningful time and manner so they may respond adequately; and

(5) written findings of fact on completion of the investigation sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful appellate review.

The Paper also suggests the accused should be found liable for such conduct only if the evidence satisfies the “clear and convincing” standard of proof. According to the ACTL, this more stringent standard is a compromise between the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, recommended by the OCR, and the “reasonable doubt” standard applicable in criminal proceedings.

The due process recommendations may prove especially useful in view of reported increases in college athlete assault and harassment investigations that have been widely covered by major media outlets. The same concerns also apply where coaches are accused of harassing or assaulting student-athletes. ACTL notes that the public’s instinct to credit alleged victims, especially where such a power differential exists between the accused and the student, highlights how the proposed due process mechanism during the investigative process may help.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/1511/feed/0Update: Minnesota Football Team Ends Bowl Boycotthttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/update-minnesota-football-team-ends-bowl-boycott/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/update-minnesota-football-team-ends-bowl-boycott/#respondSun, 18 Dec 2016 05:32:19 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1475The University of Minnesota football team ended their boycott of the Holiday Bowl after attempting to overturn the suspension of 10 players for alleged acts of sexual assault and agreed to participate in the upcoming December 27th game against Washington State University. After lengthy meetings with University President Eric Kaler and Athletic Director Mark Coyle,...… Continue Reading

]]>The University of Minnesota football team ended their boycott of the Holiday Bowl after attempting to overturn the suspension of 10 players for alleged acts of sexual assault and agreed to participate in the upcoming December 27th game against Washington State University.

After lengthy meetings with University President Eric Kaler and Athletic Director Mark Coyle, the team’s senior wide receiver Drew Wolitarsky read a statement on behalf of his teammates. In the statement,

the team acknowledged that their demand to have the suspensions of the 10 players overturned was “not going to happen”.

However, Wolitarsky also stated that during the course of the meetings an agreement was reached that assured each of the suspended players a “fair hearing” before a diverse review panel. The hearings will most likely be heard in January.

In addition, the team agreed that the players would use their status as “public figures to bring more exposure to the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women.” Wolitarsky comments further acknowledged how difficult and stressful the situation had been for everyone involved and he specifically recognized that

“there is only one way to treat all women, and that is with the utmost respect at all times.”

President Kaler reacted to the statement issued by the team and stated. “I think the statement by the students today around support for victims of sexual assault is important. I will continue to amplify the fact that the football team’s action in support of their teammates was not in support of sexual violence.”

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/update-minnesota-football-team-ends-bowl-boycott/feed/0Players To Boycott Football Activities, Bowl Game, Over Suspensions Of Teammateshttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/players-to-boycott-football-activities-bowl-game-over-suspensions-of-teammates/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/players-to-boycott-football-activities-bowl-game-over-suspensions-of-teammates/#respondSat, 17 Dec 2016 14:00:39 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1472University of Minnesota football players announced on December 15 that they are boycotting all football activities, including their December 27 Holiday Bowl game against the Washington State Cougars, to protest the University’s decision to suspend 10 teammates over a sexual assault allegation, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune. The University adopted an affirmative sexual consent...… Continue Reading

]]>University of Minnesota football players announced on December 15 that they are boycotting all football activities, including their December 27 Holiday Bowl game against the Washington State Cougars, to protest the University’s decision to suspend 10 teammates over a sexual assault allegation, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune. The University adopted an affirmative sexual consent policy in September 2015.

According to senior wide receiver Drew Wolitarsky, the University’s Athletic Director Mark Coyle failed to provide satisfactory answers to questions about why the 10 players had been suspended. Wolitarsky said that

“the boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted.”

The suspensions were handed down based on recommendations of the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action following a Title IX investigation into an alleged incident that occurred on September 2. Initially, four players were suspended, but were reinstated when the Hennepin County prosecutor declined to press charges. (None of the players were arrested.) Thereafter, the EOAA conducted its own investigation, resulting in the 10 suspensions.

Responding to the announced boycott, Coyle and Minnesota President Eric Kaler said in a joint statement:

We understand that a lot of confusion and frustration exists as a result of this week’s suspension of 10 Gopher football players from all team activities. The reality is that not everyone can have all of the facts, and unfortunately the University cannot share more information due to federal laws regarding student privacy.

We fully support our Gopher football players and all of our student-athletes. Situations like this are always difficult, and the decision was made in consultation with and has the full support of President Eric Kaler.

The decision was based on facts and is reflective of the University’s values. We want to continue an open dialogue with our players and will work to do that over the coming days.

It’s important that we continue to work together as we move through this difficult time.

Some of the suspended 10 players may be expelled while others may be suspended or put on probation for a year. The suspensions can be appealed, but a hearing may not occur before the Bowl game. Northern Illinois University, which finished with a 5-7 record but won four of its last five games, is next in line for a bowl game and could replace the University if the boycott continues.

A U.S. district court had decided the NCAA’s use of the names, images, and likenesses of college athletes without compensation violated antitrust laws. It ruled schools could (but are not required to) pay college players up to $5,000 per year. That amount, placed in a trust, would be available to the athletes after leaving college. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overruled the $5,000 holding, but upheld the lower court’s antitrust finding.

The Ninth Circuit said compensation for athletes should be limited to funds related to their education. While the NCAA is not above the antitrust laws, it continued, “the difference between offering athletes education-related compensation and offering them cash sums untethered to educational expenses is not minor.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the NCAA claimed the Ninth Circuit antitrust ruling misapplied a 1984 Supreme Court decision, NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85. It said part of that decision acknowledged that “in order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA’s) ‘product,’ athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class and the like.” Groups advocating for student-athletes wanted the Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s refusal “to confer categorical antitrust immunity on the NCAA for what in any other industry would be an unreasonable restraint of trade.”

The effect of the Supreme Court’s denial of review leaves the NCAA susceptible to other ongoing legal challenges, but it also gives the Association time to make changes to blunt such threats. A Supreme Court review of O’Bannon could have further clarified if and to what extent college athletes should be compensated for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses and provided guidance on how such compensation could affect Title IX and the federal mandate that male and female college athletes be treated equally. Without such Supreme Court clarification, the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands as favorable precedent for other legal challenges to NCAA amateurism rules, such as the case pending on behalf of former Clemson University football player Martin Jenkins.

In 2014, Jenkins sued the NCAA, alleging the NCAA and its universities and conferences have violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to limit the value of athletic scholarships to tuition, room, board, books, and fees.

The Jenkins action seeks a proposed remedy that would allow schools to compete for star athletes in a “free agent” type system by bidding for the services of those athletes. Student athletes with superior athletic talent would be able to require schools vying for their enrollment to enter into a financial bidding war to convince them to attend their university.

This would be more reflective of a free agency system at the professional sports level than the current amateur athlete recruiting process that provides athletic scholarships.

The Jenkins case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the same court that heard the O’Bannon case. In addition, the ruling federal district court judge in O’Bannon also is presiding over this litigation.

While O’Bannon may have reached its ending after seven years of protracted litigation, other potential actions can still be brought by student-athletes outside of the Ninth Circuit. Different legal interpretations among the circuit courts could bring the issue to the Supreme Court once again.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-declines-to-consider-antitrust-case-against-ncaa/feed/0University of Tennessee Settles Title IX Lawsuit For $2.48 Millionhttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/1428/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/1428/#respondWed, 20 Jul 2016 04:41:59 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1428The University of Tennessee announced on July 5, 2016, that it had settled a Title IX lawsuit filed against it by eight female plaintiffs for $2.48 million. The women alleged that the University fostered a culture of indifference by ignoring sexual assaults committed by athletes, which, in turn, created a hostile environment for females on...… Continue Reading

]]>The University of Tennessee announced on July 5, 2016, that it had settled a Title IX lawsuit filed against it by eight female plaintiffs for $2.48 million. The women alleged that the University fostered a culture of indifference by ignoring sexual assaults committed by athletes, which, in turn, created a hostile environment for females on the 27,845-student campus.

The civil suit, filed on February 9, 2016, included allegations dating back to 1995. The Complaint asserts that the plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of the University’s deliberate indifference to actions before and unreasonable responses after the rapes of female students by four athletes and one non-athlete, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs claimed that the University directly supported a student-athlete environment that encouraged underage drinking, drug use and rape, interfered with the disciplinary process in favor of male athletes charged with sexual assault, failed to promptly investigate and remediate allegations of sexual assault on campus, and discriminated against victims of sexual assault by one-sided misuse of the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act.

Notably, the plaintiffs attacked the University for its alleged inaction despite what they claimed was notice of a harassing and violent atmosphere, as well as its response to the students’ complaints. The plaintiffs sought both monetary and injunctive relief.

The University asserted that settlement discussions have been ongoing since the Complaint was initially filed, and that current negotiations began in April. With respect to payment of the settlement, no taxpayer dollars, donor funds, student tuition, or fees will be used; rather, the University’s Athletics Department and Central Administration will split equally the payment of the settlement.

Following news of the settlement, the plaintiffs’ attorney reflected that in the wake of the litigation, he believed the University made significant progress in the way it educated staff and the student body about sexual assaults and responded to such allegations. Similarly, counsel and head officials for the University of Tennessee indicated that, while the settlement was in no way an admission of guilt or liability, the University took the complaints seriously and intends to address aggressively future sexual assault incidents.

In fact, new initiatives aimed at combating and responding to sexual assault are being introduced and increased funding will be allocated to issues such as handling sexual assaults, student conduct, educational programming, and student well-being.

In addition, Joe DiPietro, president of the University of Tennessee system, announced that he plans to appoint an independent commission to review and make recommendations to existing programs relating to Title IX issues.

This settlement adds to a growing list of large universities that, in the past couple of years, have similarly settled lawsuits alleging Title IX violations.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/1428/feed/0New York’s ‘Enough is Enough’ to Become Lawhttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/new-yorks-enough-is-enough-to-become-law/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/new-yorks-enough-is-enough-to-become-law/#respondThu, 18 Jun 2015 20:37:32 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1339Legislation to curb sexual assault on college campuses in New York is set to become law. Governor Andrew Cuomo had introduced the bill in January 2015. The “Enough is Enough” bill encourages victims of sexual assault on campus to report the incident and bolsters support services for victims. Significantly, the legislation adopts a statewide affirmative...… Continue Reading

]]>Legislation to curb sexual assault on college campuses in New York is set to become law. Governor Andrew Cuomo had introduced the bill in January 2015.

The “Enough is Enough” bill encourages victims of sexual assault on campus to report the incident and bolsters support services for victims. Significantly, the legislation adopts a statewide affirmative consent definition for college campuses. Following in California’s footsteps, the New York legislation defines consent as a:

“knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity” and specifies that “consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity.”

The bill also includes:

A statewide amnesty policy to ensure students reporting incidents of sexual assault will not face discipline for otherwise violating the college’s code of conduct, including any drug or alcohol policy;

A Students’ Bill of Rights, which must be distributed to all students, identifying students’ rights, including the right to report such incidents to outside law enforcement, and how students may access resources;

Comprehensive training requirements for students, faculty, staff, and administration; and

Reporting requirements for secondary institutions to report annually data on the number of reported sexual assaults along with their adjudication.

The bill also creates a new unit within the New York State police department: the “sexual assault victims unit.” The unit would specialize in handling sexual assault and providing assistance to campus police. Finally, a commitment of $10 million has been pledged in the legislation to help combat campus sexual assault.

Except for the affirmative consent definition included in the bill, much of the legislation builds upon the requirements of the Campus SaVE Act, which was part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2013. Secondary schools have until July 1, 2015, to finalize policies and procedures to comply with Campus SaVE. Now, secondary schools in New York State also must revise their policies to comply with “Enough is Enough.”